Õ23
In view of the above considerations and of the interest attaching to the earlier figures,
attention may be called to the principal sources of past incompleteness in the German
returns, other than those to which attention has already been directed.
A complete record of unemployed should contain the following five classes of
persons :—
(a) Those actually receiving unemployed benefit.
(b) Those who have n^jt yet been out of work sufficiently long to claim benefit.
(c) Those who have exhausted their claim to benefit, having received all that the
rules permit, for the time being.
(d) Those who have not yet become entitled to benefit as members of the union,
haying joined it too recently.
(e) Those on travelling benefit.
All those who are unemployed, in whichever of these five classes they fill, should be
included in a complete return. As regards the German figures, it appears that, up to quite
recently, (a), (b) and a part of (e) constituted the bulk of those returned. All of (a) are of
course included, but, in view of the fact that in the German unions benefit lasts, as a rule,
only for ten weeks or less (90 per cent, of unions), while in British unions the period of
benefit is very much greater (only .11 per cent, of unions having so short a period as
10 weeks), a much larger proportion of the total unemployed is included in (a) in the
British unions than in the German. For example the great Metal Workers Union in
Germany pays unemployed benefit for ten weeks only, compared with 52 weeks or even
more for all full members in the case of the Amalgamated Society ÕF Engineers ; the
Woodworkers’ Union pays for six weeks only, compared with 24 in the case of the
Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. Since (a) represents the only absolutely
complete and certain element in both the sets of statistics, it is evident that this difference
of practice gravely affects their comparability. A further consideration tending to the
same result is that, whereas benefits begin after from two to six days of unemployment in
the British unions, they are deferred till from seven to fifteen days of unemployment have
been passed in the German unions.
Of class (b) there appears to have been some leakage in the German figures, owing to the
difference between the British and German methods of securing the daily report of
unemployed persons. Some informants of the Board of Trade have stated that a not inconsiderable
number do not report at the office of their union daily, and thus the return, which
generally, if not always, covers the unemployed reported on the day to which it refers,
may fail to be exhaustive in regard to class (b). It is further asserted that the benefit is
so small in some of the unions that members do not always consider it worth while
reporting their unemployment continuously, especially when the union’s office is distant
from, their residence, or a chance to secure work calls them elsewhere.
Of class (e), which is very much more important in proportion to the total out of
employment in Germany than in England, many escape record on the day of the return,
as it is often not required that they report at branch-offices more frequently than at 10-day
intervals. Only those reporting on the day of the return can be definitely known by the
branch offices to be on travel, and thus a complete return is not secured. Conditions in
regard to this group of unemployed differ widely in Germany from those prevailing in
this country.
In regard to class (c), they were, until quite recently, very imperfectly represented in
the German returns, and though, as above stated, improvement in this respect has been
effected since the issue of the new instructions in the autumn of 1906, it is doubtful if the
present returns include substantially the wffiole of the members of this class. For the
reasons mentioned when discussing class (a), this class is relatively very large in Germany,
and it is easy to appreciate that its members would, in many cases, possess little interest
in keeping up a notification that they were out of work. Though the union registries are
doing an increasingly important work in assisting members to find employment, it is still
the fact that the municipal and employers’ registries are of the greater importance.
Of class (d) it is difficult to judge how far they are likely to contribute to the records
of unemployed. It must be borne in mind that the period of membership which qualifies
for benefit is much longer in Germany than in this country. Here it averages under ten
months, there it is nearly fifteen months on the average. Moreover, German trade unions
have grown very rapidly in membership—much more rapidly than the British unions in
the last few years. This rapid growth is illustrated by the following table :—
Increase of Membership in certain German Trade Unions during the
Years 1904-1907.
Unions.
Metal Workers ...
W ood Workers ...
Transport Workers
Brewery Workers
Number of Members at the end of the Year.
1904.
181,328
103,034
40,314
19,371
1905.
1906.
1907.
260,305
131,257
51,061
23,227
331,822
153,981
80,580
28,573
366,189
148,869
88,502
33,028
Increase
per cent.,
1904-1907.
102
44
120
71
(The information is obtained from the Tables in the Reichs-Arbeitsblutt for January
°f the next following year in each case.)
29088
3 U 2
